In that case, I amend my statement. The few articles I read said nothing about the kind of profits he made. That is a different situation entirely.

Click to expand...

No, profits don't make a difference in illegal activities.

Even if he didn't make any profit, according to Galenmereths source he sold pokemon-named alcoholic drinks - and pokemon is targeted at minors mostly.

And even if that wasn't the case - the activity might still be something you don't want to be associated with your own IP.

And even if someone does not make profit and does not break the spirit of your property: Have you ever thought of what the people are talking about when they say they can't risk voiding the copyright?

If you allow even a few people getting away with abusing the IP for non-profit reasons because you have absolutely no problem with what they're doing, then suddenly there comes a competing company selling a fangame they did.

And if you try to stop them from profiting that, they go to court and claim "X allowed everyone else to make fangames - so he now has to allow us to make a fangame. And he can't claim any of the money we're making, because it's only compensation for our own work - he never charged anyone for the use of his IP"

That is what all those C&D's against even small hobby projects are about - not neccessarily that the hobby project would harm the company directly, they only set up precedents that can be used to void the copyright if a competing company tries to do that simply to destroy your main source of income, so that they can dominate the market instead of sharing it with you.

A lot of people have this misconception that "not making a profit" makes it legal. But US law (and the law of all Berne Convention member countries, even if rights owners don't always pursue action in such situations) doesn't support this. As in the Pokemon example, the guy so much as says he thinks they only went after him because they got the idea he was making a profit.

As for non-enforcement leading to being unable to enforce, that's only trademark. There's no such thing as copyright dilution. The choice to pursue action or tolerate is up to the rights owner, and rarely does anybody else discover the reasons for doing one or the other. As a rule of thumb, owners with more resources have lower thresholds.

I should have been more clear. When I mentioned not knowing about the profits, I also meant that I didn't know about the alcohol or anything like that. The articles I read only talked about the flyer, and that it was a pokemon-themed party. That was it. Which is why I thought it was crap that the PC would sue the guy.

I should have been more clear. When I mentioned not knowing about the profits, I also meant that I didn't know about the alcohol or anything like that. The articles I read only talked about the flyer, and that it was a pokemon-themed party. That was it. Which is why I thought it was crap that the PC would sue the guy.

Click to expand...

It may have been crap, but they'd still have been in the right legally. The point I've been trying to make with this example is that if you infringe upon someone's copyright, however seemingly inoffensive, you risk serious penalties.

After reading this thread, it made me think on making an RPG fan-game from a now-defunct online game made by a Korean company. No profit pr whatsoever, just making an RPG in memory of that game. I might consider asking for permission first once it's done before letting others play it.

I'd like to point out that a parody or ironic imitation of a game would fall under fair use.

Click to expand...

Yes, but there are two limits with that:

1) Fair Use is a defense, not a right - which means to use that defense, you already have to be in court before a judge, with all the stress about that - and then the judge has to decide if your game was really a parody or if you pretended to be a parody to escape a fine.

And let's admit it, there are some companies who do this to their small competitors simply because the process of judging (while sales are stopped) throws them out of business, even if theaccusing company knows up front that they will be defeated by that.

2) A parody still can't use the logo and names of the original. That's why that defense won't work for a fangame - it's a defense against copyright infringment, but NOT against trademark violations.

1) Fair Use is a defense, not a right - which means to use that defense, you already have to be in court before a judge, with all the stress about that - and then the judge has to decide if your game was really a parody or if you pretended to be a parody to escape a fine.

And let's admit it, there are some companies who do this to their small competitors simply because the process of judging (while sales are stopped) throws them out of business, even if they know up front that they will be defeated by that.

2) A parody still can't use the logo and names of the original. That's why that defense won't work for a fangame - it's a defense against copyright infringment, but NOT against trademark violations.

unfortunately, they're illegal. nothing illegal about inspiration though. also, it just feels better to put all that time and effort into something that's your own, something you can own. There's a lot of argument about the usefulness of copyright, the value of derivative works, and why parody can "get away with it", but this isn't a topic for debating those merits i'd assume. although im sure some people would argue fangames should be legal. i would lol if i could be bothered but i cant. hey